Thursday, 13 September 2012

I am trying to get a theme going across
blogs, facebook and twitter. Post your own "dear Obama" message warning him
that the Muslim Brotherhood is doing some trivial thing democrats waste
time accusing Republicans or the Tea Party of doing. Here are some I've already thought up:

Dear President Obama: the Muslim Brotherhood does not provide women with free contraception. Please send Sandra Fluke to negotiate.

Dear President Obama: the Muslim Brotherhood
has over a billion dollars of taxpayer money, and some of it might be
invested in a Swiss bank. You should check that out while you are
investigating Mitt Romney's tax returns.

Dear President Obama: I heard the Muslim Brotherhood might require members to have a photo ID. You should look into that.

Dear President Obama: children of the Muslim Brotherhood are eating more and more high fructose corn syrup. Please,
think of the children!

Dear President Obama: I hear the Muslim Brotherhood is bitterly clinging to guns and religion. You may want Eric Holder to look into that.

Dear President Obama: I hear the Muslim
Brotherhood may be supporting a War on Women. How about cutting their
funding and donating it to breast cancer research instead?

Dear President Obama: I think the Muslim
Brotherhood may not have all their tires properly inflated. They may be
contributing to global warming. Please look into this!

Dear President Obama: I don't think the Muslim
Brotherhood has enough Latino members. Maybe you should ask your
Diversity Czar to check into that?

Dear President Obama, I think that some
members of the Muslim Brotherhood actually believe in "legitimate rape."
Please check into that.

Dear President Obama: I saw your allies, if
that's what you think they are today, in the Muslim Brotherhood driving
large, gas guzzling SUVs. Maybe you should buy them Chevy Volts
instead!

That's enough to get you started. Share these, post your own to blogs, facebook and twitter, make
them go viral!

Saturday, 11 August 2012

As you can see from my earlier post, I was wrong. Romney, however, was right. Ryan is an unbelievably great candidate. In my earlier prediction, I didn't consider Ryan simply because I didn't believe Romney would be bold enough to choose him. I am glad to be wrong!

Ryan is the best possible choice for transforming government. I don't just mean reforming. I mean TRANSFORMING. Government has grown so much and is so far from what the Founders intended, mere reformation is not enough.

Ryan is a man of policy and ideas, not simply someone who fills in important boxes on a checksheet. I was afraid Romney would bow to pressure from certain demographics, and think he had to choose a running mate in order to appeal to "the Hispanics" or "the women" or "the evangelicals" or "the South" or "Ohio." Nope. Romney chose a man based on principles of policy and ideas. This signals two important things:

1) Romney is a man who will govern according to the principles of policy and ideas, and,

2) Romney is confident he can win with these principles, instead of needing to rely on "the Hispanics" or "the women" or "the evangelicals" or "the South" or "Ohio."

In other words, this choice exudes both principle and confidence in principle.

This is a good day for America. A VERY good day. Up until now, I was only hopeful that Romney could beat Obama because people dislike Obama more, and then Romney would simply not be as bad. Now, I am hopeful Romney and Ryan can beat beat Obama and Biden because America WANTS Romney and Ryan, and that together they will repair our nation.

Friday, 13 July 2012

There is a lot of talk today about Condi Rice for VP. I like Condi and all. But it won't be her. She is perceived as a moderate - probably unjustly so, but the fact is, on some social issues, she is distrusted by the conservative base. This conservative base is already skeptical of Romney, so Romney needs a reassuring pick, not a controversial one in this regard. She is also closely associated with the Bush administration. Now remember, for the most part, I liked Bush. This is not a bad thing for me. But Obama wants to run against the last two years of the Bush administration - two years that went south, largely because Pelosi and Reid were running Congress... but I digress. Romney needs to be able to say that he would not be just another Bush Republican. Condi on the ticket negates that. Finally, unlike most other politicians who say it, when she says she never wants to run for office, she convinces me. So who should Romney choose? I say, Bobby Jindal:

Jindal would be perfect for many reasons:

1) Let's get the obvious out of the way - Jindal is an Indian-American, and Romney is a boring white guy. Jindal on the ticket would be abother historic first, and would forever change the race debates in this nation. The GOP would no longer be the white people party. And it would highlight the racial double-standard of the left: to liberals, if you are black or Mexican, you are a special minority. But if you are Asian, you are nothing to them. However, Asians have just surpassed hispanics as the fastest growing immigrant group. They are an important voting bloc, and have been largely ignored by politicians across the country. This would be big. Real big.

2) Jindal is both the second coming of, and at the same time, the polar opposite of, Sarah Palin. Palin and Jindal agree on most issues, excite the tea party and conservative base, and break ground as historic minority figures. Jindal would add needed fire to the Romney campaign as Palin did for McCain. But elites hated Palin, unfairly, because she is a "low brow" figure who took more than four years to graduate from a podunk state college and went on to do things like work on fishing boats instead of working at law firms, universities, or major corporations like "respectable" people. Jindal is at home with blue collar working class folks, but has elite cred up the wazoo (see below).

3) Jindal would be one of the most intelligent, best educated candidates on a ticket - just like Romney. Obama fans brag about his Harvard Law degree and tenure as a professor. Well... Romney graduated with honors from Harvard Law AND Harvard Business. He needs a running mate with similar achievement, to avoid diminishing his own. Jindal graduated from Brown with honors (double majoring, in just three years), then went to Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, graduating with a Master's degree in Political Science, and was a consultant for McKinsey and Company and president of University of Louisiana - that's real brains, with the paper to back it up. It would be impossible for anyone to say with any credibility that the Republican Party is the "stupid" party with Jindal on the ticket alongside Romney.

4) Jindal has government experience and executive experience that defies belief for someone so young. Jindal was the head of Louisiana Health and Human Services, president of University of Louisiana, assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Congressman, and Governor of Louisiana - all before age 40. He is younger than I am by a year. I feel so pathetic in comparison! Romney's big advantage - his private sector experience - is also a weakness in that people expect a President (especially after the Obama nightmare) to have extensive experience running GOVERNMENT. Romney has only his one term as a governor; adding Jindal to the ticket would add incredible balance in that regard.

6) Jindal is right on the issues. He favors limited federal government, states' rights, low taxes, less regulation, secure borders, life, liberty, guns, babies, God and country. Jindal is top rated by Right to Life, the NRA, and Club for Growth. He has the right vision for America, and will help reassure those on our side who fear Romney lacks a conservative vision or core conservative principles.

7) Jindal has experience that Romney lacks. Jindal served on the Homeland Security Committee in Congress and has national security expertise. This helps make up for a significant Romney weakness while the U.S. is still engaged in the Global War on Terror and faces new threats from the likes of Iran.

8) Jindal is a turn-around specialist, like Romney, but with government instead of private business. As head of Louisiana HHS, Jindal wiped out a $400 million deficit and created a $200 million surplus. As governor, he rescued his state's credit rating. He has the same vision for rescuing failing organizations with sweeping changes for improved efficiency as Romney - but has experience doing it with failing governments.

9) Jindal's greatest area of expertise is healthcare policy. The GOP is running on repealing Obamacare. The left keeps saying the GOP has no vision for replacing it. Romney's greatest weakness is that he implemented Romneycare as governor. Having Jindal on the ticket demonstrates a commitment to making actual healthcare REFORM, and not just Obamacare repeal, a top priority.

10) Jindal is Catholic. Romney is Mormon. Many voters will not support a Mormon. The Catholic Church has been, historically, one of the most critical anti-Mormon organizations. A Mormon-Catholic ticket would be an incredible thing, more so (in my opinion) than a Mormon-Protestant ticket. While there are many Protestant evangelicals who will not support Romney, I believe their biggest problem with him isn't religion so much as perceived weakness on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, and gun control. Jindal would do more to help with this than probably any Protestant other than Mike Huckabee - and Huckabee would do more harm with tea party conservatives than he would help with social conservative evangelicals.

11) JIndal has been vetted. He has been elected and re-elected congressman and governor. Louisiana is a tough state for politics. If there was dirt on Jindal, it would have already derailed him.

12) Jindal has handled crisis. He succeeded in leading during the Gulf oil spill and Hurricane Gustav when other states failed, and in stark contrast to Katrina before he became governor. When the 3 a.m. call comes, Jindal will have a cool head and get right to work solving the crisis.

13) Unlike some other potential candidates, Jindal was not in Congress during the end of the Bush years, and therefore does not have a TARP vote to rationalize! He has congressional experience (important, as VP is also President of the Senate), but without a long history of bad votes to drag him down.

14) Jindal has a strong family story. He is the child of immigrants. His parents came to America to make use of their education in a free country. His siblings are all successes. His wife is a chemical engineer with an MBA working on her PhD. Everyone in the family has strong personal values. There won't be any embarassing uncles showing up drunk or children being born out of wedlock.

So that's my take. Jindal would be best. You can agree or disagree. But regardless of who Romney chooses as his running mate, my vote is with Romney to defeat Obama. I hope you and I can agree on that!

Monday, 20 September 2010

By now, you have probably heard a lot of GOP establishment elitists lamenting the primary victory of Christine O'Donnell. Now they are attacking her with far greater zeal than they have ever displayed against actual liberal democrats.

What gives?

She is conservative. She is pro-life. She is pro-gun. She is Christian. She is small government. She is anti-tax. She is for free markets. She is against Obamacare. She is against stimulus spending. She is against cap and trade. On pretty much every policy, she is exactly where the GOP platform says a GOP candidate should be.

So why do they hate her? Simple: she is not one of them.

Here is how the elitists - and by this, I mean the Washington insider elitists of BOTH parties, not the average voter, and certainly not the average conservative - see her:

She is an idiot. She is a crazy, insane, fool. She is a bible-thumping hypocrite who until last week was sacrificing babies to satan. She is an ingnorant, stupid, uneducated hick who didn't go to a real university, and who barely even graduated at all. She is white trash. She is a redneck rube from poor breeding mouth breather bitter clingers and not from a nice old money establishment family. She is a lightweight who can't win an election because she has made mistakes in her past, been involved in legal battles, and doesn't have a lot of her own money. And worst of all, she is just a pretty face, a cute smile, pretty hair and fun glasses. Kind of like that other horrifyingly bad candidate, Sarah Palin.

Oh, and speaking of witch which, Sarah Palin rushed in to endorse her and help her win the primary. That bitch witch.

That is what the elitists think. And that is why they hate her. But it isn't why they attack her so much. The attack her not out of hate, but out of fear. And why? Because her campaign is now a referendum on Sarah Palin. And they fear Sarah Palin.

The elites dread one thing more than just about anything else, and that is Sarah Palin becoming President of the United States. They don't fear it because they fear her policies or what she may do as President - well, except for one thing: flushing out all the elitists from power.

The elitists fear that the Tea Party movement will clean house, and all the elitists in power will no longer have power. Plain and simple. And to the elitists, Sarah Palin IS the Tea Party. And Christine O'Donnell is Sarah Palin by proxy. Defeat O'Donnell, and defeat Palin.

So whenever you hear some pointy headed certified smart person claiming to be a good conservative Republican and ranting about how horrific Christine O'Donnell is and how stupid the Tea Party is for nominating her and how she will lose her election, just remember what they are really saying: we hate Sarah Palin, you stupid ignorant bible thumping bitter clinger white trash idiot.

If you believe in what the Tea Party stands for, support Christine O'Donnell. If you think Sarah Palin is your friend and not your enemy, support Christine O'Donnell. If you think it is time to make good on Nancy Pelosi's pledge to drain the swamp, support Christine O'Donnell. If you believe Washington is broken and the establishment elitists are to blame, support Christine O'Donnell.

If none of that applies to you... well... just come clean and admit you want to elect committed marxist and Reid lap dog Coon instead. I'd respect you more if you were at least honest about it.

Now, don't get me wrong. This IS COOL. And very MANLY. And, ordinarily, I would totally approve of a publicity stunt like this. Except we are in a budget crisis - and a multi-front war - so reckless spending of military dollars is probably not the smartest thing.

But I have to wonder: why did THIS stunt get approved (and funded) when other PR events for military flyers were nixed? OK, sure, you can say that one was nixed because it was too Christian. But that isn't the point I am making. My point is, why, when other military stunts are turned down, did this one get the green light? I have a theory:

The government now has a vested stake in GM. Forget "General" Motors. The company is now GOVERNMENT Motors. And this publicity stunt could help boost sales of a GM product. And now our military is being used as shills for Obama's new car company.

What's the problem? Well, when it comes to the Blue Angels, there is more at stake than money. Did you know that since the squadron was formed in 1949, there have been only 262 total pilots to serve in it? And did you know that, due to the extreme danger of the complex stunt flying, there have been 26 fatalities in the squadron?

That's a 10 percent mortality rate, for peaceful duty. You see, these guys (and gals!) have a damn tough job: demonstrate the finest flying in the world on a daily basis, for the sole purpose of demonstrating the skills and professionalism of U.S. Naval aviators. They are killing themselves to show the world how good we are.

Now, to me, that is pretty sacred. It ain't something to be abused to help a few sleazy car dealers draw in a few more folks from the testosterone crowd.

That said, from the text of the article, it does at least sound like the Blue Angels had a lot of fun doing it - and I admit, as a sports car junkie, I would have, too. Hell, I would have volunteered my services. So maybe there is nothing to make of this story, other than what is presented in the magazine: good people having a great time while making the most of two impressive pieces of transportation hardware. But I can't help feel this whole thing is tainted by the GM government bailout and the administration's bad track record so far with military aircraft.

Sunday, 07 June 2009

This means no ceremonial swords. Never mind the fact that the ceremonial sword is part of the uniform of the very same officers who have sworn an oath to - among other things - obey the orders of the President. As my father, who retired after 30 years service as a naval officer, reminded me: full dress white includes "wear sword." No, we can't have swords there... to dangerous... too... militaristic.

I suppose while we are at it, we should remove all the cannons from the campus.

And maybe we had better get rid of all the cutlery at the mess hall.

You know... the Navy SEALs are weapons.

Better be sure none of them are in attendance. That includes you, Jesse...

I suppose we'd better not have the Blue Angels fly over this year.

Perhaps we should do away with the drill team.

Actually, better do away with all the marksmanship training, too.

After all, why do we even need weapons? Instead of combat training, let's give our best and brightest advanced negotiation and mediation training!

Why even have militaries? Get rid of the service academies! After all, all these kids could have gone to schools like Columbia or Harvard, where they could have studied the nuances of foreign policy instead of being indoctrinated into jingoistic nationalism camps.

Clearly, we have been doing this wrong all along. Thank God, er, I mean, thank OBAMA we have finally seen the light!

Wednesday, 15 April 2009

Meanwhile, across the nation, many thousands of people are participating in tea parties, to protest the growth and expansion of, and oppression by, the federal government.

Just how bad is it? Well, it is so bad that in Texas, just a few days after celebrating annexation, Governor Rick Perry and the Texas legislature are asserting state sovereignty against the federal government. The last time a state got this vocal, the word "secede" was included. I think Rick Perry just became the front runner for 2012. If the last Governor of Texas had taken federalism this seriously, we'd have a solid Republican majority througout federal government today.

Instead, the all-democrat federal government is sounding more and more oppressive. In what can surely be called an exercise in bad timing, the news today is littered with reports about a new Department of Homeland Security report warning us all about dangerous right-wing extremists.

Yes, if you are a conservative, or a Christian, or a gun-owner, or a veteran, or unemployed, or believe in the Constitution or the right to life, well, you might be a terrorist.

Meanwhile, this same department is busy making sure no actual honest-to-God terrorists might be offended.

Big things are happening. Big changes are coming. But I predict things will have to continue to get worse before there is any chance they may get better - and there is no guarantee better things are even coming.

For the first time in my entire life, I am actually, truly, afraid for my country.